@Ryan: The WP7 HW ASP is 176% of Symbian ASP; why is the fact that it's only $289 a problem?

Also, HTC isn't a "strong impediment" at all given that it's high ASP will correlate with low shipments. Samsung overtook Nokia in smartphones because it runs the gamut of dumb to feature to smart to high end smart phones.

i've heard it's $262. And the very point of WP7 is that it's standardized; it doesn't run the gamut. It's a mid-range and flagship phone os.

Okay, so I'm going to point out something I think is obvious; WP7 isn't a flagship OS yet given it isn't running on high resolution dual core HW that practically everyone else has. It's running on high clocked single core and fairly high resolution phones, meaning it's firmly midrange.

Even the 900 is in that group.

So it's competing with the $375 iPhone 3GS and the $499 iPhone 4, the older Galaxy S, etc. It's ASP, either $262 or $289, reflects that.

Quote:

Tango can theoretically solve that problem and target the lower markets, but nokia had two WP7 phones in Q1 and their MSRPs are $350 and $450. If they average $262 or $289 for them, that's serious discounting. Symbian is by it's nature a low-end phone OS at this point in time. It's expected be lower ASP. The fact that the ASP is only $289 is a problem because WP7 is supposed to be a mid-range and flagship OS. Samsung and HTC's midrange and flagship phones appear to be priced at around $300-550 (both companies offer lower end phones too) and so for your "increased ASP" "avoiding commoditization" OS to have such a low ASP is a big problem.

Well, until Nokia, like RIM, can release a modern flagship phone, they actually can't compete with the rest of the pack, nor charge appropriately.

In this case Tango will address the $200 market, WP7.5 the $300 market, and WP8 the $400 market (and above).

eh, not really. The $400 market's phones are not standouts, by and large. The Galaxy R, Optimus 2x, Atrix 2... I'd go ahead and say the high-end Lumias can theoretically compete there, maybe not on SoC specs but on display, OS, smoothness, and such. I mean, the 900 is MSRP $450 right now. That's where i'd expect it to be since i'm sure it'll go down to $400 on sale. I think Windows Phone 7 the $300-450 is the market it's targeting, and sure enough the Nokia Lumia 710 was MSRP 350, 800 MSRP 450. For Q1, i think that was a fair price for the theoretical specs and smoothness... other phones were dual core but often less smooth and besides they had comparable screens, cameras and storage. So i'd expect an MSRP of around $375, assuming an average price of $300 for 710 (after discounting) and $400 for 800 (after discounting) and a ratio heavily weighted towards the better-reviewed 800... but instead we got $275 or so, indicating perhaps $225 and $349 prices, which is borne out by what i see them charging for the phones right now. That seems a tad low, especially the 710, which is going for ~$225 right now in some markets; it still has fairly high end hardware. The $349 for the 800 is probably a lower profit margin then samsung selling say the Galaxy W for $300 (which they do, now), and it also indicates steep discounting of what was At the Time nokia's highest phone to more of a lower-middle-end... not good. Keep in mind the 900 is just the 800 with a big screen and LTE, and in europe those are less relevant, so i think $400 was what they expected...

Samsung, a current smartphone leader, sold/shipped 20m Galaxy 2s in a 9 month period. That works out to about 7m in a quarter, well within the reach of Nokia's Lumia.

If you're comparing the Lumia in sales to the current leaders, it's doing fine.

If you're comparing to the iPhone then you're crazy because currently no one compares to the iPhone. For the Lumia to be a success, based on the sales of the Galaxy phones as a benchmark, they need to ramp up to 10m a year, then 30m next year. It was only 2010 when Samsung ONLY sold 10m Galaxy S phones worldwide.

Samsung, a current smartphone leader, sold/shipped 20m Galaxy 2s in a 9 month period. That works out to about 7m in a quarter, well within the reach of Nokia's Lumia.

If you're comparing the Lumia in sales to the current leaders, it's doing fine.

If you're comparing to the iPhone then you're crazy because currently no one compares to the iPhone. For the Lumia to be a success, based on the sales of the Galaxy phones as a benchmark, they need to ramp up to 10m a year, then 30m next year. It was only 2010 when Samsung ONLY sold 10m Galaxy S phones worldwide.

which lumia?Lumia is a family of models at many pricepoints, GSII is a very high end phone. So your statement is preposterous if you mean _all the lumias_. Obviously one cannot compare the 4-phone lineup with pricepoints from $200-450 and varying screen size, quality, cameras, storage, build, chipset quality, ram, etc to one fairly consistent phone at the top end ($500-550) of the range with mostly the same camera, screen, build, SoC quality (albeit different SoCs), and ram.

There are additional size/screen/LTE/battery variations on top of that. Note that the devices range from 1GHz to 1.5GHz, with the 1GHz Nvidia Tegra 2 being a much lower end chip than the 1.5GHz Snapdragons, as an example, which contrasts to the Lumia 710, 800, and 900 all being powered by similar 1.4GHz Snapdragon S2 SoC.

Meaning that all three are theoretically similar to the high end of the Galaxy S2 series, excepting that it is a single core vs a dual core device.

There are additional size/screen/LTE/battery variations on top of that. Note that the devices range from 1GHz to 1.5GHz, with the 1GHz Nvidia Tegra 2 being a much lower end chip than the 1.5GHz Snapdragons, as an example, which contrasts to the Lumia 710, 800, and 900 all being powered by similar 1.4GHz Snapdragon S2 SoC.

Meaning that all three are theoretically similar to the high end of the Galaxy S2 series, excepting that it is a single core vs a dual core device.

Galaxy R Galaxy W aren't Galaxy S II, they're galaxy. There are three galaxy S II SoC used: OMAP4430, Exynos, Qualcomm APQ8060. The Galaxy W and Galaxy R aren't Galaxy S IIs as should be obvious by the titles. you're also forgetting the Lumia 610 and again all the Galaxy S IIs (that are actually labeled S II and not, something other than SII like R or W) are $500+ devices. Lumia ranges from $200-450.

Symbian was fine for "light" smart phones, like the ones that Nokia used to dominate in before they told the world they were crap and would stop investing in them in the next couple of years. Tomi is a crazy man, but the burning of the Symbian bridge by the new Nokia management is unheard of, and really unquestionably stupid. It was good enough to hold on to sales before WP7 took off or they got their low end phone story going with newer stuff. Just baffling really how it was handled.

Is Symbian the way forward? No way. Should Nokia be developing a Plan B in case the WP play fails, of course. If they aren't they are even dumber than they have acted.

The saddest part is that Nokia makes me glad to be a fan of Blackberry instead of them. There really is no upside to the Nokia story, I don't see a way out for them.

The Galaxy R has the I90X numbering, placing it in the S2 family! I admit the Galaxy W shouldn't be there by dint of having the I8150 model numbering and single core CPU, Except that I do believe Samsung hawks it as the S2 Mini!

Akin to how the iPod nano, Shuffle, and Touch all lack a scroll wheel yet are iPods!

The saddest part is that Nokia makes me glad to be a fan of Blackberry instead of them. There really is no upside to the Nokia story, I don't see a way out for them.

That's ironic coming for you. The upside is clear, growing sales and ASPs of WP devices, unlike RIM's falling sales of their Symbian analogue, BB7, which doesn't have a replacement in place for another two quarters! At least Nokia now has 3 WP devices with at least three more prior to the release of WP8 and BBOS10 later this fall.

The Galaxy R has the I90X numbering, placing it in the S2 family! I admit the Galaxy W shouldn't be there by dint of having the I8150 model numbering and single core CPU, Except that I do believe Samsung hawks it as the S2 Mini!

Akin to how the iPod nano, Shuffle, and Touch all lack a scroll wheel yet are iPods!

The saddest part is that Nokia makes me glad to be a fan of Blackberry instead of them. There really is no upside to the Nokia story, I don't see a way out for them.

That's ironic coming for you. The upside is clear, growing sales and ASPs of WP devices, unlike RIM's falling sales of their Symbian analogue, BB7, which doesn't have a replacement in place for another two quarters! At least Nokia now has 3 WP devices with at least three more prior to the release of WP8 and BBOS10 later this fall.

by growing sales you mean nokia sales falling off a cliff?

They are now at a tiny fraction of their 2010 share and sales. Blackberry was growing sales until like the last Q. They're both doomed.Blackberry has no replacement plans, Nokia's replacement plans are bomba.

Samsung, a current smartphone leader, sold/shipped 20m Galaxy 2s in a 9 month period. That works out to about 7m in a quarter, well within the reach of Nokia's Lumia.

If you're comparing the Lumia in sales to the current leaders, it's doing fine.

Someone at The Register pointed out that the Galaxy Note (a million per month) outsold the Lumias in Q1 (the 710 and 800 sold two and a bit million). It must be quite sobering for Nokia that Samsung's ultra-niche smart-phone can outsell Nokia's much cheaper "bet the farm" product line.

The 900 and the general price cutting should increase sales, but it's stuff like this that shows why Samsung are ahead of Nokia now.

Samsung, a current smartphone leader, sold/shipped 20m Galaxy 2s in a 9 month period. That works out to about 7m in a quarter, well within the reach of Nokia's Lumia.

If you're comparing the Lumia in sales to the current leaders, it's doing fine.

Someone at The Register pointed out that the Galaxy Note (a million per month) outsold the Lumias in Q1 (the 710 and 800 sold two and a bit million). It must be quite sobering for Nokia that Samsung's ultra-niche smart-phone can outsell Nokia's much cheaper "bet the farm" product line.

The 900 and the general price cutting should increase sales, but it's stuff like this that shows why Samsung are ahead of Nokia now.

Not really, having used a Note, I struggle to call it a smart phone. I don't know what it is to be honest.

If you're comparing the Lumia in sales to the current leaders, it's doing fine.

That's a fair point of comparison if you are Nokia, looking for survival.

If you are Microsoft, the point of comparison is iPhone and they are looking at that for the aggregate Nokia line. They've basically told everyone else to get the heck out.

If the WPx line doesn't break out of this sub two per cent ghetto in a year or so, Nokia has got to wonder if even Microsoft is going to stay the course. It isn't the money that will make MS pull out -- its the opportunity cost of doing phones instead something that will really matter to them. Even 5 per cent of the market (well up from where WPx is now) simply isn't worth the time and investment this is talking when you consider what MS wants here. Nor is it obvious a long, twilight, Mac-style struggle for relevance is worth it, either. At some point, if you're MS, you cut your losses, live off of whatever happens on the Android and Apple apps, and move on. Maybe you concentrate your investment in tablets, for instance. If you can't move the needle on phones, soon, the tablet war (much more important, in the end) beckons.

And, unlike Android, WPx can be withdrawn from the marketplace, something Nokia has to consider.

The saddest part is that Nokia makes me glad to be a fan of Blackberry instead of them. There really is no upside to the Nokia story, I don't see a way out for them.

That's ironic coming for you. The upside is clear, growing sales and ASPs of WP devices, unlike RIM's falling sales of their Symbian analogue, BB7, which doesn't have a replacement in place for another two quarters! At least Nokia now has 3 WP devices with at least three more prior to the release of WP8 and BBOS10 later this fall.

by growing sales you mean nokia sales falling off a cliff?

They are now at a tiny fraction of their 2010 share and sales. Blackberry was growing sales until like the last Q. They're both doomed.Blackberry has no replacement plans, Nokia's replacement plans are bomba.

Let's be clear, BB has subscriptions and services and a viable (kind of) wholly owned app store. They'll probably fail, I just want to say they have more time than Nokia.

I was shocked at this week's articles that Nokia is running out of money already. How did they not get financed by MS for long enough? It's not like WP7 was a huge success. They saw the Symbian collapse coming. Why weren't they positioned for at least a year of Lumia production? I thought for sure they had a couple to get going, but I didn't know about their debt.

Elop has a massive challenge now to save his company and his reputation as a one man pirate party.

The saddest part is that Nokia makes me glad to be a fan of Blackberry instead of them. There really is no upside to the Nokia story, I don't see a way out for them.

That's ironic coming for you. The upside is clear, growing sales and ASPs of WP devices, unlike RIM's falling sales of their Symbian analogue, BB7, which doesn't have a replacement in place for another two quarters! At least Nokia now has 3 WP devices with at least three more prior to the release of WP8 and BBOS10 later this fall.

by growing sales you mean nokia sales falling off a cliff?

They are now at a tiny fraction of their 2010 share and sales. Blackberry was growing sales until like the last Q. They're both doomed.Blackberry has no replacement plans, Nokia's replacement plans are bomba.

In this analysis I'm discounting both the Symbian and BB7 sales since they are end of life.

If you're comparing the Lumia in sales to the current leaders, it's doing fine.

That's a fair point of comparison if you are Nokia, looking for survival.

If you are Microsoft, the point of comparison is iPhone and they are looking at that for the aggregate Nokia line. They've basically told everyone else to get the heck out.

If the WPx line doesn't break out of this sub two per cent ghetto in a year or so, Nokia has got to wonder if even Microsoft is going to stay the course. It isn't the money that will make MS pull out -- its the opportunity cost of doing phones instead something that will really matter to them. Even 5 per cent of the market (well up from where WPx is now) simply isn't worth the time and investment this is talking when you consider what MS wants here. Nor is it obvious a long, twilight, Mac-style struggle for relevance is worth it, either. At some point, if you're MS, you cut your losses, live off of whatever happens on the Android and Apple apps, and move on. Maybe you concentrate your investment in tablets, for instance. If you can't move the needle on phones, soon, the tablet war (much more important, in the end) beckons.

And, unlike Android, WPx can be withdrawn from the marketplace, something Nokia has to consider.

That logic is equally valid for the XBox yet Microsoft stayed the course for nearly 11 years now.

I was shocked at this week's articles that Nokia is running out of money already. How did they not get financed by MS for long enough? It's not like WP7 was a huge success. They saw the Symbian collapse coming. Why weren't they positioned for at least a year of Lumia production? I thought for sure they had a couple to get going, but I didn't know about their debt.

Elop has a massive challenge now to save his company and his reputation as a one man pirate party.

Symbian has falled far faster than Elop anticipated and WP7 is not working as well as he expected.It seems he thought the public admission that the Symbian is dead-end won't affect sales much, but it triggered rapid drop of Symbian phone sales.

That logic is equally valid for the XBox yet Microsoft stayed the course for nearly 11 years now.

True, but one still wonders. In the case of XBox, it was and is a separate business -- it was simply a matter of "did it make money" at last.

Here, the strategic stakes are higher. That suggests even more persistence -- until it becomes obvious that the effort will fall far short. W8/WP8 is that time; if it is still in the low single digits, then watch out.

Then the question comes unbidden -- how can we make lemonade out of these lemons? Because the resources spent in WPx can be profitably redeployed in the tablet arena. If the conclusion ever is "go focus on tablets", then that's the day Nokia can be left high and dry.

That's a big "if" and I don't even know if Ballmer is capable of such a decision even if it is the right one. But, it's a scenario that Nokia has to have some plan in mind to counter if it ever happens.

That logic is equally valid for the XBox yet Microsoft stayed the course for nearly 11 years now.

True, but one still wonders. In the case of XBox, it was and is a separate business -- it was simply a matter of "did it make money" at last.

Here, the strategic stakes are higher. That suggests even more persistence -- until it becomes obvious that the effort will fall far short. W8/WP8 is that time; if it is still in the low single digits, then watch out.

Then the question comes unbidden -- how can we make lemonade out of these lemons? Because the resources spent in WPx can be profitably redeployed in the tablet arena. If the conclusion ever is "go focus on tablets", then that's the day Nokia can be left high and dry.

That's a big "if" and I don't even know if Ballmer is capable of such a decision even if it is the right one. But, it's a scenario that Nokia has to have some plan in mind to counter if it ever happens.

Nokia itself is planning tablets. I don't think they plan to be 100% a phone vendor for very long.

Nokia itself is planning tablets. I don't think they plan to be 100% a phone vendor for very long.

I missed that. That's good news, actually.

For all the criticism of the burning platforms memo, then at least Elop is doubling down properly.

There was no realistic prospect of Nokia's former phone software taking off on tablets. At this writing, Android is still stumbling there and MS is banking heavily on what amounts to a crossover effect from Windows.

There's even less room for multiple operating systems on tablets (on available evidence) than in the phone arena.

If Nokia wants to play in both arenas, which certainly is a reasonable ambition, then it's time to stop talking about what a mistake it was to ditch Nokia's home grown OSes. One might still bitch about the Osborning problem, but other than that, I don't see the legit point of debate the moment Nokia joins the tablet game.

Even if Nokia fails and dies, it was right to fold its software tent when it did. The only remaining argument is whether it picked the right alternative.

Symbian has falled far faster than Elop anticipated and WP7 is not working as well as he expected.It seems he thought the public admission that the Symbian is dead-end won't affect sales much, but it triggered rapid drop of Symbian phone sales.

People who are very interested in tech news tend to overestimate the impact of tech news... Symbian wasn't killed by the burning platform memo, but by terrible products.

Some point at the N8 as an example of how Symbian phones were selling well at the beginning of 2011, but high-end devices like the N8 only accounted for about 10% of the platform. The rest were low- and mid-range products that were based on older versions of Symbian (3rd Edition and 5th Edition). The hardware was lame and the operating systems were years out of date.

Nokia's fatal error with Symbian was that they had decided on a strategy to move it downmarket, but they didn't do anything to make it appealing to these new buyers. Instead, the plan for the low end was simply to keep selling 3-year-old versions of the OS.

Remember the bad reception of the N97? The majority of Nokia's early 2011 Symbian range were variations of the N97 platform wrapped in cheap plastic with resistive touchscreens.

Symbian collapsed because customers didn't want to buy these devices, not because of what Elop said at some conference that most phone buyers have never even heard of.

Look at the companies making a splash in tablets:Asus, Acer, Amazon, Samsung, Apple (of course)...they all have computer businesses, or in the case of amazon, content businesses and a storefront. Now look at the list of bombs:HTC Flyer, LG Gslate, Motorola Xoom, Motorola Xoom 2, Blackberry Playbook...All made by companies without a computer businesses, computer experience, or basically any experience selling computers or any OEM channels thereof. No wonder they failed.

I think you need a succesful computer business and thus experience selling computers to stores (or in amazon's case an actual storefront) to work right with tablets. Since the sales model is basically very similar to computers.

Symbian has falled far faster than Elop anticipated and WP7 is not working as well as he expected.It seems he thought the public admission that the Symbian is dead-end won't affect sales much, but it triggered rapid drop of Symbian phone sales.

People who are very interested in tech news tend to overestimate the impact of tech news... Symbian wasn't killed by the burning platform memo, but by terrible products.

Some point at the N8 as an example of how Symbian phones were selling well at the beginning of 2011, but high-end devices like the N8 only accounted for about 10% of the platform. The rest were low- and mid-range products that were based on older versions of Symbian (3rd Edition and 5th Edition). The hardware was lame and the operating systems were years out of date.

Nokia's fatal error with Symbian was that they had decided on a strategy to move it downmarket, but they didn't do anything to make it appealing to these new buyers. Instead, the plan for the low end was simply to keep selling 3-year-old versions of the OS.

Remember the bad reception of the N97? The majority of Nokia's early 2011 Symbian range were variations of the N97 platform wrapped in cheap plastic with resistive touchscreens.

Symbian collapsed because customers didn't want to buy these devices, not because of what Elop said at some conference that most phone buyers have never even heard of.

i fundamentally disagree. The dropoff is too sudden and comes too late (way after the iphone and android introductions) to be based on that. It's also too sharp and sales were actually increasing prior to that.

Nokia was right to move away from Symbian, but foolishly made a exclusive deal to move to a weaker platformer.

There is no reason why Nokia couldn't have made WP7 and Android devices.

The Xbox arguement means nothing with Windows Phone 7, the mobile market changes too rapidly for investors to go along with another $4 billion dollar investment that takes over a decade to see a return on like with the Xbox. Especially when MS has already stayed this course for a few years already and has spent billions, with not much to show for it.

Consoles don't have carriers who sit between MS and the consumer and act like gatekeepers. The mobile market is also far more competitive and there won't be a opening handed to MS like there was with the 360 being the first next generation console to market for almost a year with no competition.

I think you need a succesful computer business and thus experience selling computers to stores (or in amazon's case an actual storefront) to work right with tablets. Since the sales model is basically very similar to computers.

I think you're on to something here, but I also don't think there is guaranteed failure, either.

We underrate things like channels around here, but it's not like nobody knows the secret sauce for getting a PC-based product into the channel. And, Nokia is a well-known brand in a reasonably related area. If they decided to make PCs, for instance, I'd at least look, which is a big step compared to some no name.

This is, in the end, a simpler game, because you don't have the carriers as the gatekeepers. You have retailers who are always looking for something that will sell.

In any case, this is an arena where persistence could pay off. So a newcomer stumbles a bit out of the gate. Solve this particular channels problem and you've got a fair shot at a business overall.

It is certainly an independent effort that can be mounted. There's a danger in senior management taking their eyes off of the main ball, but the main ball is already in play; one could even make an argument now that tablets is a very respectable backup plan for Nokia.

And that's granting everything you say. The question is whether they can overcome it and do so fast enough. None of that makes tablets a bad idea for Nokia, especially given their relationship with MS. Heck, if they can solve this riddle, maybe they become the preferred supplier for MS tablets (especially WOA).

One thing is clear enough: Whatever is going on in the Android space (I don't think that is entirely clear), I haven't seen world-beating marketing of non-Apple tablets from the ASUS and other fine businesses you cited. There is plenty of room for improvement if Nokia can figure out how.

The mobile market is also far more competitive and there won't be a opening handed to MS like there was with the 360 being the first next generation console to market for almost a year with no competition.

The iPhone was unrivalled for over a year until the first Android handset came out. Now look where Android is.

Symbian has falled far faster than Elop anticipated and WP7 is not working as well as he expected.It seems he thought the public admission that the Symbian is dead-end won't affect sales much, but it triggered rapid drop of Symbian phone sales.

Symbian collapsed because customers didn't want to buy these devices, not because of what Elop said at some conference that most phone buyers have never even heard of.

i fundamentally disagree. The dropoff is too sudden and comes too late (way after the iphone and android introductions) to be based on that. It's also too sharp and sales were actually increasing prior to that.

I think there's a much simpler reason for the sudden drop-off. The N97 owners finished their contracts. Up until January of 2011, Nokia was selling symbian phones to the back of the pack - late adopters who by their nature are more likely to purchase "more of the same". The N97 was good enough that it gobbled up a ton of early adopters in late 2008 and they were still on contract up until round about the time of the Burning Platform memo. In late 2010, early 2011, all those early adopters of N97 systems finished their 2 year contracts and moved on in droves.

And yes, Europeans have more pay as you go, but there's still enough people on contracts to create a precipitous decline when those contracts are up. And even people without contracts like to amortize their investment over a period of time, so 2 years on is a reasonable time frame for those without contracts on their N97s to start looking.

Elop no doubt knew this precipitous decline was on the horizon from market research about intention to buy so there is a relationship between the Burning Platform memo and the sales collapse - the memo was timed when it was because Elop knew the collapse was coming.

Look at the companies making a splash in tablets:Asus, Acer, Amazon, Samsung, Apple (of course)...they all have computer businesses, or in the case of amazon, content businesses and a storefront. Now look at the list of bombs:HTC Flyer, LG Gslate, Motorola Xoom, Motorola Xoom 2, Blackberry Playbook...All made by companies without a computer businesses, computer experience, or basically any experience selling computers or any OEM channels thereof. No wonder they failed.

I think you need a succesful computer business and thus experience selling computers to stores (or in amazon's case an actual storefront) to work right with tablets. Since the sales model is basically very similar to computers.

Sooo...on what planet are Asus, Acer and Samsung "making a splash" in tablets?

The only companies with tablets worth talking about are Amazon and Apple.

The mobile market is also far more competitive and there won't be a opening handed to MS like there was with the 360 being the first next generation console to market for almost a year with no competition.

The iPhone was unrivalled for over a year until the first Android handset came out. Now look where Android is.

True, but the mobile market was alot different back then, the iPhone was only available on limited carriers, and at the high end price point. Android had plenty of carriers and market segments to target to sell its devices.

Android was able to do this even though Windows Mobile had a presence and could have filled that role but failed to do so despite MS efforts.

It is near impossible that MS is just going to get another opportunity like they got with the 360 handed to them in today's mobile market. Which is just one reason among many of why the xbox analogy doesn't work with Windows Phone.

Look at the companies making a splash in tablets:Asus, Acer, Amazon, Samsung, Apple (of course)...they all have computer businesses, or in the case of amazon, content businesses and a storefront. Now look at the list of bombs:HTC Flyer, LG Gslate, Motorola Xoom, Motorola Xoom 2, Blackberry Playbook...All made by companies without a computer businesses, computer experience, or basically any experience selling computers or any OEM channels thereof. No wonder they failed.

I think you need a succesful computer business and thus experience selling computers to stores (or in amazon's case an actual storefront) to work right with tablets. Since the sales model is basically very similar to computers.

You got it wrong. The companies making a splash in tablets:Amazon, Apple...They all have retail channels, content deals, cloud services, and good SW. There are some persistent OEMs:Asus, Samsung...They have reasonably good prices and good hardware.Now look at the list of bombs:HP TouchPad, RIM PlayBook, Motorla Xoom, Acer Iconia, HTC FlyerAll made by companies lacking retail experience, software experience, support experience, or cloud experience, possibly all of the above.

It appears you need multiple things to be a successful tablet retailer:Retail experienceContentSoftware experienceReasonable priceSupport experience

The mobile market is also far more competitive and there won't be a opening handed to MS like there was with the 360 being the first next generation console to market for almost a year with no competition.

The iPhone was unrivalled for over a year until the first Android handset came out. Now look where Android is.

Android filled a hole in the market: iPhone-like functionality, cheaper and more widely available.